Jump to content

Self-determination: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
DRN is about bringing editors together, it's not an arbitration. It went awry when you took over the process. These comments support this edit: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Verification_source_citations_is_this_WP:OR_and_WP:SYN.3F
Undid revision 513739349 by Langus-TxT (talk) rv WP:TAG team edit warring DRN and RSN don't support that edit
Line 206: Line 206:
Self-determination is referred to in the [[Falkland Islands Constitution]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2846/contents/made |title=The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |date=2011-07-04 |accessdate=2012-03-04}}</ref> and is a factor in the [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]]. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.<ref name="Bulmer-Thomas1989">{{cite book|author=Victor Bulmer-Thomas|title=Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Kfk0AWSaHjoC&pg=PA3|accessdate=11 September 2012|date=17 August 1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-37205-3|pages=3–}}</ref> In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/08/falklands-1986-referendum-showed-94.5-favoured-british-sovereignty|title=Falklands’ 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty |publisher=En.mercopress.com |date= |accessdate=2012-08-09}}</ref> As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/15/self-determination-and-self-sufficiency-falklands-message-to-the-world-on-liberation-day |title="Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress |publisher=En.mercopress.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-04}}</ref>
Self-determination is referred to in the [[Falkland Islands Constitution]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2846/contents/made |title=The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |date=2011-07-04 |accessdate=2012-03-04}}</ref> and is a factor in the [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]]. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.<ref name="Bulmer-Thomas1989">{{cite book|author=Victor Bulmer-Thomas|title=Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Kfk0AWSaHjoC&pg=PA3|accessdate=11 September 2012|date=17 August 1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-37205-3|pages=3–}}</ref> In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/08/falklands-1986-referendum-showed-94.5-favoured-british-sovereignty|title=Falklands’ 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty |publisher=En.mercopress.com |date= |accessdate=2012-08-09}}</ref> As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/15/self-determination-and-self-sufficiency-falklands-message-to-the-world-on-liberation-day |title="Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress |publisher=En.mercopress.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-04}}</ref>


Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable, asserting the current inhabitants are "''descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled''".<ref>[http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/gacol3047.doc.htm UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047]</ref> This refers to the [[Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands|re-establishment of British rule]] in the year 1833<ref>[http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands</ref> during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity [[Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity|should have precedence]] over self-determination.{{cn}} Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, and that only a garrison was expelled.<ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Cawkell|title=The Falkland story, 1592-1982|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ|accessdate=27 May 2012|date=January 1983|publisher=A. Nelson|isbn=978-0-904614-08-4|page=30}}</ref> Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.<ref name="Risman1983">{{cite book|author=Risman, W. M|title=The struggle for the Falklands|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ylr93&div=24&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=41&men_tab=srchresults|year=1983|publisher=The Yale Law Journal|page=306}}</ref><ref name="Bulmes1989">{{cite book|author=Bulmer-Thomas, Victor|title=Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship|url=http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Kfk0AWSaHjoC|year=1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=3}}</ref> Harper claims that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.<ref name="Harper1998">{{cite book|author=Marjory Harper|title=Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=L4x2UdzPB4cC&pg=PA91|year=1998|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=978-0-7190-4927-9|page=91}}</ref>
Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable, asserting the current inhabitants are "''descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled''".<ref>[http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/gacol3047.doc.htm UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047]</ref> This refers to the [[Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands|re-establishment of British rule]] in the year 1833<ref>[http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands</ref> during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity [[Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity|should have precedence]] over self-determination.<ref name="López1995">{{cite book|author=Angel M. Oliveri López|title=Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-u1ygYbRBHgC&pg=PA38|year=1995|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=978-1-55587-521-3|page=38}}</ref> Historian Mary Cawkell<ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Cawkell|title=The Falkland story, 1592-1982|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ|accessdate=27 May 2012|date=January 1983|publisher=A. Nelson|isbn=978-0-904614-08-4|page=30}}</ref> considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain,<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html] The Telegraph, Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina, Jasper Copping, 27 Feb 2010 ''There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did. ''</ref><ref name="Destéfani1982">{{cite book|author=Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani|title=The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the Sout Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sGAJSfxqd7oC|accessdate=27 May 2012|year=1982|publisher=Edipress|isbn=978-950-01-6904-2|pages=91–94}}</ref> that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.<ref name="Harper1998">{{cite book|author=Marjory Harper|title=Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=L4x2UdzPB4cC&pg=PA91|year=1998|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=978-0-7190-4927-9|page=91}}</ref>


===Israel and Palestinian territories===
===Israel and Palestinian territories===

Revision as of 16:58, 20 September 2012

The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law[1][2] that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[5] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[6]

On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) under titled Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples provided for the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples In Article 5 states: Immediate steps shall be taken in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,[7] or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom, moreover on 15 December 1960 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) under titled Principles which should guide members in determining whether or nor an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the United Nations Charter in Article 3 provided that [i]nadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. To monitor the implementation of Resolution 1514 in 1961 the General Assembly created the Special Committee referred to popularly as the Special Committee on Decolonization to ensure decolonisation complete compliance with the principle of self-determination in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), 12 Principle of the Annex[8] defining free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government[9] compliance with the principle of self-determination.[10][11]

By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.[12][13]

History

Pre-20th century

Origins

Just as colonisation and colonialism have been practiced throughout recorded history, political self-determination, on an individual level, has been documented similarly and cherished highly by collective peoples despite them; ancient Mesopotamia and the later Greek city-states are early examples of its practice.[6] The employment of imperialism, through the expansion of empires, and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self-determination during the modern era. During, and after, the Industrial Revolution many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states, in this situation self-determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved.

Empires

The world possessed several traditional, continental empires such as the Ottoman, Russian, Austrian/Habsburg, and the Qing Empire. Political scientists often define competition in Europe during the Modern Era as a balance of power struggle, which also induced various European states to pursue colonial empires, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese, and later including the British, French, Dutch, and German. During the early 19th century, competition in Europe produced multiple wars, most notably the Napoleonic Wars. After this conflict, the British Empire became dominant and entered its "imperial century", while nationalism became a powerful political ideology in Europe.

Later, after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, "New Imperialism" was unleashed with France and later Germany establishing colonies in Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. Japan also emerged as a new power. Multiple theaters of competition developed across the world:

The Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Qing Empire and the new Empire of Japan maintained themselves, often expanding or contracting at the expense of another empire. All ignored notions of self-determination for those governed.[14]

Rebellions and emergence of nationalism

The revolt of New World British colonists in North America, during the mid-1770s, has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination, because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the United States Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century.[6] The French Revolution was motivated similarly and legitimatized the ideas of self-determination on that Old World continent.[15][16]

Within the New World during the early 19th century, most of the nations of Spanish America achieved independence from Spain. The United States supported that status, as policy in the hemisphere relative to European colonialism, with the Monroe Doctrine. The American public, organized associated groups, and even Congressional resolutions, often supported such movements, particularly the Greek War of Independence (1821–29) and the demands of Hungarian revolutionaries in 1848. Such support, however, never became official government policy, due to balancing of other national interests. After the American Civil War and with increasing capability, the United States government did not accept self-determination as a basis during its Purchase of Alaska and attempted purchase of the West Indian islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John in 1860s, or its growing influence in the Hawaiian Islands, that led to annexation in 1898. With its victory in the Spanish-American War in 1899 and its growing stature in the world, the United States supported annexation of the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, without the consent of their peoples, and it retained "quasi-suzerainty" over Cuba, as well.[6]

Nationalist sentiments emerged inside the traditional empires including: Pan-Slavism in Russia; Ottomanism, Kemalist Ideology and Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire; State Shintoism and Japanese identity in Japan; and Han identity in juxtaposition to the Manchurian ruling class in China. Meanwhile in Europe itself there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence.

Karl Marx supported such nationalism, believing it might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.[17] In 1914 Vladmir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."[18]

World Wars I and II

Europe, Asia and Africa

Map of the world in 1945, showing United Nations Trusteeship Council territories in green[19]

Woodrow Wilson revived the American commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in November 1917, they called for Russia's immediate withdrawal as a member of the Allies of World War I. They also supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination."[18] The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.[6]

This presented a challenge to Wilson's more limited demands. In January 1918 Wilson issued his Fourteen Points of January 1918 which, among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims, as long as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples.[6] The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led to Russia's exit from the war and the independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Poland. The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation by the Allies of Czechoslovakia and the union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia as new states. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially Poles, Czechs, and Serbs and Romanians) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them eventually helped lead to World War II. The defeated Ottoman empire was dissolved into the Republic of Turkey and several smaller nations, including Yemen, plus the new Middle East Allied "mandates" of Syria and Lebanon (future Syria, Lebanon and Hatay State), Palestine (future Transjordan and Israel), Mesopotamia (future Iraq). The League of Nations was proposed as much as a means of consolidating these new states, as a path to peace.[20]

During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. And Italy, Japan and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control, leading to World War II.

In Asia, Japan became a rising power and gained more respect from Western powers after its victory in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan joined the Allied Powers in World War I and attacked German colonial possessions in the Far East, adding former German possessions to its own empire. In the 1930s, Japan gained significant influence in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria after it invaded Manchuria. It established Manchukuo, a puppet state in Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia. This was essentially the model Japan followed as it invaded other areas in Asia and established the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In 1912, the Republic of China officially succeeded the Qing Dynasty, while Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Tuva proclaimed their independence. Independence was not accepted by the government of China. In 1915 treaty of Kyakhta Outer Mongolia recognized China's sovereignty. However, the Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia's independence, provided that a referendum was held. The referendum took place on October 20, 1945, with (according to official numbers) 100% of the electorate voting for independence.

Many of Eastern Asia's current disputes to sovereignty and self-determination stem from unresolved disputes from World War II. After its fall, the Empire of Japan renounced control over many of its former possessions including Korea, Sakhalin Island, and Taiwan. In none of these areas were the opinions of affected people consulted, or given significant priority. Korea was specifically granted independence but the receiver of various other areas was not stated in the Treaty of San Francisco, giving Taiwan de facto independence although its political status continues to be ambiguous.

The Cold War world

The UN Charter

In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

  • Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[21]
  • Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[22] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[23] Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
  • The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.[24][25] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.[6][26][27] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination.[24]

The communist versus capitalist worlds

Decolonization in the world was contrasted by the Soviet Union's successful post-war expansionism. Tuva and several regional states in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, and Central Asia had been fully annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II. Now, it extended its influence by establishing satellite states in Eastern Germany and the countries of Eastern Europe, along with support for revolutionary movements in China and North Korea. Although satellite states were independent and possessed sovereignty, the Soviet Union often violated principles of self-determination by suppressing the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and the Prague Spring Czechoslovak reforms of 1968. It invaded Afghanistan to support an increasingly unpopular communist government assailed by local tribal groups.[6] However, Marxism-Leninism and its theory of imperialism were also strongs influences in the national emancipation movements of third world nations rebelling against colonial or puppet regimes. In many Third World countries, communism became an ideology that united groups to oppose imperialism or colonization.

Soviet actions were countered by the United States which saw communism as a menace to its interests. Throughout the cold war, the United States created, supported, and sponsored regimes with various success that served their economic and political interests, among them anti-communism. To achieve this, a variety of means was implemented, including the orchestration of coups, sponsoring of dictatorships and military invasions.

Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.[6] Thus, the United States entered into a ten-year war in Vietnam, taking over from French colonialists,[28] and supported Portugal in its attempts to hold on to Angola. The Rhodesian Bush War of the 1960s and 1970s pitted the unrecognized, ardently anti-communist Rhodesian government, composed largely of the country's minority whites, against rival groups of black guerrillas, aligned respectively with Moscow and Beijing.[29] The Chinese-backed Zimbabwe African National Union eventually took power in 1980, when the internationally-recognised Republic of Zimbabwe was formed.[30]

Asia

In Asia, the Soviet Union had already converted Mongolia into a satellite state but abandoned propping up the Second East Turkestan Republic and gave up its Manchurian claims to China. The new People's Republic of China had gained control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War. The Korean War shifted the focus of the Cold War from Europe to Asia, where competing superpowers took advantage of decolonization to spread their influence.

In 1947, India gained independence from the British Empire. The empire was in decline but adapted to these circumstances by creating the British Commonwealth-—since 1949 the Commonwealth of Nations-—which is a free association of equal states. As India obtained its independence, multiple ethnic conflicts emerged in relation to the formation of a statehood during the Partition of India which resulted in Islamic Pakistan and Secular India. Before the advent of the British, no empire based in mainland India had controlled any part of what now makes up the country's Northeast, part of the reason for the ongoing insurgency in Northeast India.[31] In 1971 Bangladesh obtained independence from the eastern half of Pakistan.

Burma also gained independence from the British Empire, but declined membership in the Commonwealth. Internal conflict in Burma that challenge the ruling government persist.

Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands in 1949 after the latter failed to restore colonial control. As mentioned above, Indonesia also wanted a powerful position in the region that could be lessened by the creation of united Malaysia. The Netherlands retained Dutch New Guinea, but Indonesia threatened to invade and annex it. A vote was supposedly taken under the UN sponsored Act of Free Choice to allow West New Guineans to decide their fate, although many dispute its veracity. Later, Portugal relinquished control over East Timor in 1975, at which time Indonesia promptly invaded and annexed it.

Sarawak and Sabah

Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit from British Malaya. An experience concerned the findings of a United Nations Assessment Team that led the British territories of Sarawak and Sabah in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new Malaya Federation.[32] The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointed Cobbold Commission which had arrived in the territories in 1962 and held hearings to determine public opinion. It also sifted through 1600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations and political parties. Cobbold concluded that around two thirds of the population favoured joining Malaysia while the remaining third wanted either independence or continuing control by the United Kingdom. The United Nations team largely confirmed these findings, which were later accepted by the General Assembly, and both territories subsequently joined with the new Federation of Malaysia. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any referendums self-determination being held.[33][34][35] they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was an agreement between the Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 July 1963)[36][37] This also triggered the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.[38][39]

After the Cold War

The Cold War began to wind down after Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power in March 1985. With the cooperation of the American president Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev wound down the size of the Soviet Armed Forces and reduced nuclear arms in Europe, while liberalizing the economy.

In 1989–90, the communist regimes of Soviet satellite states collapsed in rapid succession in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Mongolia. East and West Germany united, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, while in 1990 Yugoslavia began a violent break up into its former 6 sub-unit republics. Kosovo, which was previously an autonomous unit of Serbia declared independence in 2008, but has received less international recognition.[6]

In December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president and the Soviet Union dissolved relatively peacefully into fifteen sovereign republics, all of which rejected communism and most of which adopted democratic reforms and free-market economies. Inside those new republics, four major areas have claimed their own independence, but not received widespread international recognition.

After decades of civil war, Indonesia finally recognized the independence of East Timor in 2002.

In 1949, the Communists won the civil war and established the People's Republic of China in Mainland China. The Kuomintang-led Republic of China government retreated to Taipei, its jurisdiction now limited to Taiwan and several outlying islands. Since then, the People's Republic of China has been involved in disputes with the ROC over issues of sovereignty and the political status of Taiwan.

As noted, self-determination movements remain strong in some areas of the world. Some areas possess de facto independence, such as Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, and South Ossetia, but their independence is disputed by one or more major states. Significant movements for self-determination also persist for locations that lack de facto independence, such as Kurdistan, Chechnya, and the State of Palestine.

Current issues

Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and even full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.[40] The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The year 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration failed to deal with these new demands, mentioning only "the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation."[25][41]

In an issue of Macquarie University Law Journal Associate professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination.[42] These include:

Defining "peoples"

There is not yet a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law. Vita Gudeleviciute of Vytautas Magnus University Law School, reviewing international law and UN resolutions, finds in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation "a people" is the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, the unrepresented become a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples.[25] Other definitions offered are "peoples" being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment", i.e. "loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples. Or the definition may be simply that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state. If the "people" are unanimous in their desire for self-determination, it strengthens their claim. For example, the populations of federal units of the Yugoslav federation were considered a people in the breakup of Yugoslavia, even though some of those units had very diverse populations.[42] Libertarians who argue for self-determination distinguish between the voluntary nation (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and the state, the coercive apparatus, which they have a right to choose or self-determine.[20]

Self-determination versus territorial integrity

National self-determination appears to challenge the principle of territorial integrity (or sovereignty) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies a people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries. However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.[42] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence. [43][44][45][46]

Pavkovic and Radan describe three theories of international relations relevant to self-determination.

  • The realist theory of international relations insists that territorial sovereignty is more important than national self-determination. This policy was pursued by the major powers during the Cold War.
  • Liberal internationalism has become an alternative since that time. It promotes the abolition of war among states as well as increased individual liberty within states, and holds the expansion of global markets and cross-border cooperation diminishes the significance of territorial integrity, allowing for somewhat greater recognition of greater self-determination of peoples.
  • Cosmopolitan liberalism calls for political power to shift to a world government which would make secession and change of boundaries a relatively easy administrative matter. However, also would mean the de facto end of self-determination of national groups.[42]

Allen Buchanan, author of seven books on self-determination and secession, supports territorial integrity as a moral and legal aspect of constitutional democracy. However, he also advances a "Remedial Rights Only Theory" where a group has "a general right to secede if and only if it has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort." He also would recognize secession if the state grants, or the constitution includes, a right to secede.[25]

Vita Gudeleviciute holds that in cases of non-self-governing peoples and foreign military occupation the principle of self-determination trumps that of territorial integrity. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, they also may be considered a separate people, but under current law cannot claim the right to self-determination. On the other hand, she finds that secession within a single state is a domestic matter not covered by international law. Thus there are no on what groups may constitute a seceding people.[25]

A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism. This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination. This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that "all peoples have the right to self-determination" and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims. The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". Further, the use of the word attempt in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.[47] An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.[48][49]

Methods of increasing minority rights

In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many states decentralize or devolve greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits or even autonomous areas. More limited measures might include restricting demands to the maintenance of national cultures or granting non-territorial autonomy in the form of national associations which would assume control over cultural matters. This would be available only to groups that abandoned secessionist demands and the territorial state would retain political and judicial control, but only if would remain with the territorially organized state.[42]

Self-determination versus majority rule/equal rights

Pavković explores how national self-determination, in the form of creation of a new state through secession, could override the principles of majority rule and of equal rights, which are primary liberal principles. This includes the question of how an unwanted state can be imposed upon a minority. He explores five contemporary theories of secession. In "anarcho-capitalist" theory only landowners have the right to secede. In communitarian theory, only those groups that desire direct or greater political participation have the right, including groups deprived of rights, per Allen Buchanan. In two nationalist theories, only national cultural groups have a right to secede. Australian professor Harry Beran's democratic theory endorses the equality of the right of secession to all types of groups. Unilateral secession against majority rule is justified if the group allows secession of any other group within its territory.[50][51]

Constitutional law

Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.[52]

In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Texas v White, held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[53][54] The British Parliament in 1933 held that Western Australia only could secede from Australia upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.[42]

The Chinese Communist Party followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years, and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership."[52]

As of 1996 the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, Singapore,[citation needed] Saint Kitts and Nevis Republics have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new cantons. In the case of proposed Quebec separation from Canada the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a constitutional amendment confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.[52]

The 2003 draft of the European Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the State wanted to leave could not be involved in the vote deciding whether or not they can leave the Union.[52] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[55] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.

Drawing new borders

In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.[56] Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were related mostly to borders issues because the international community applied a version of uti possidetis juris in transforming existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec state opposed to being incorporated into a Quebec nation and even stated a determination to resist it by force.[42]

The border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State was based on the borders of existing counties and did not include all of historic Ulster. A Boundary Commission was established to consider re-drawing it. Its proposals, which amounted to a small net transfer to Northern Ireland, were leaked to the press and then not acted upon. In December 1925, the governments of the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom agreed to accept the existing border. Most Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans claim all of Northern Ireland and are not particularly interested in new borders.[citation needed]

Current movements

For past movements see list of historical autonomist and secessionist movements and lists of decolonized nations. Also see list of autonomous areas by country and list of territorial autonomies and list of active autonomist and secessionist movements.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Australia

Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aborigines (indigenous Australians). In the 1970s, the Aboriginal community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.

Balochistan province

Since 1948, Baloch nationalists in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have been seeking to separate Baloch majority regions of the three countries to form a new state with the help of elements outside the aforementioned countries. The movement has culminated in several armed uprisings in both Pakistan and Iran, that have been crushed, especially during the 1970s inspired by Bengali nationalists. The movement is strongest in Pakistan, where it is led by the Balochistan National Party Balochistan Liberation Army and the Baloch Students Organization. This is supported by arch-rival countries such as the Republic of India and Bangladesh.

Basque Country

The Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria, Spanish: País Vasco, French: Pays Basque) as a cultural region (not to be confused with the homonym Autonomous Community of the Basque country) is a European region in the western Pyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and Navarre in Spain and the Northern Basque Country in France. Since the 19th century, Basque nationalism has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination.[citation needed] This desire for independence is particularly stressed among leftist Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by the Basque Parliament in 1990, 2002 and 2006.[57] Since[citation needed] self-determination is not recognized in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, some Basques abstained and some even voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. However, it was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74,6% of the votes in the Basque Country.[58] The derived autonomous regimes for the BAC was approved in later referendum but the autonomy of Navarre (amejoramiento del fuero: "improvement of the charter") was never subject to referendum but just approved by the Navarrese Cortes (parliament). There are not many sources on the issue for the French Basque country.

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Template:Lang-en; pronounced [ˈeta]), is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization. Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to a paramilitary group with the goal of Basque independence. Its ideology is Marxist-Leninist.[59][60]

Biafra

After years of ethnic friction culminating in the massacre of the Ibos in the Northern and Western Nigeria between 1966 and 1967 in which an estimated population of 500,000 Easterners were killed in a planned pogrom, the Eastern Region headed by Lt Col Odumegwu Ojukwu started a secessionist movement in Nigeria which resulted in the creation of the Republic of Biafra to protect the Easterners from annihilation. The inhabitants were mostly the Igbo people who led the secession due to economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions. This led to the Nigerian Civil War which would have been avoided if the Nigerian leaders had not violated the Aburi Accord 1967 made between the Biafrans and the Nigerians which guaranteed self-governance to the then four geopolitical regions. After initial military gains, the Biafran forces were pushed back and in 1970 Biafra was reabsorbed into Nigeria after an estimated population of 3 million Biafrans including women and children had been killed through the war starvation policy of the Nigerian Government.

The meaning of the word "Biafra" has been explained in the Book, "Biafra or Nigerian Presidency: What the Ibos Want" where the author delved into the etimology and etiology of the words "Biafra", "Ibo" and "Igbo" and proved that "Biafra" is an ancient word in the Igbo language which was lost many centuries ago just like other Igbo words have been lost. The word "Biafra" appeared for the first time in the ancient map of Africa drawn by the Portuguese from 1492 to 1729 when it was spelt as Biafara, Biafar, and Biafares. It was in 1843 that the country was spelt as BIAFRA encompassing the lower Niger River and parts of the present day Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their ancient country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law. In addition, they have revived the Radio Biafra as a powerful media tool to educate their people. In recent times a public debate has started in the media on the rights of the indigenous people of Biafra. In response to those opposing the independence of Biafra, the solicitor for the indigenous people of Biafra made a strong argument in both national and international law asserting that what Nigeria got after the Biafra War of Independence was a military conquest and not a political victory. He submitted that what Biafra lost after the war was its sovereignty and not its people and therefore the remnants who were not consumed by the war are still protected under the law to exercise their right to self-determination as indigenous people of Biafra. Thus, the quest to revive Biafra is gathering momentum both at national and international levels as it is now being championed by legal methods. At the moment, Nigeria is made up of six geopolitical regions which are capable of self-governance. In recent times, separatist aspirations have been growing again in Nigeria, not only by the indigenous people of Biafra but also by other ethnic groups both in the North and in the South, giving a clear sign that Nigeria may not remain the same, but will either be restructured to guarantee self-governance to the six geopolitical regions similar to the Aburi Accord 1967 or break up, disintegrate and go into oblivion like one of the ancient empires we read in history.[61]

Canada

In Canada, many in the province of Quebec have wanted the province to separate from Confederation. The Parti Quebecois has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination." There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.[62] French Canadian nationalism and support for maintaining French Canadian culture would inspire Quebec nationalists, many of whom were supporters of the Quebec sovereignty movement during the late-20th century.[63]

Catalan Countries

Països Catalans (in Catalan, often literally translated into English as Catalan Countries) refers to the territories where Catalan language is historically spoken.[64] These correspond with some parts of the medieval Crown of Aragon [65][66] (concretely Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencia and La Franja in Spain, Northern Catalonia in France, the city of Alghero in Italy, and Andorra).[67]

Today there are movements supporting the independence of the Catalan Countries in both Spain and France, but they only have significant support in Catalonia. Some of political parties from Catalonia, the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands that follow this idea are the Republican Left of Catalonia, Catalan Solidarity for Independence (SI), Rally for Independence and Republican Left of the Valencian Country, Estat Català, Partit Republicà Català, Popular Unity Candidates, Valencian Nationalist Bloc, Bloc per Mallorca, etc. Furthermore, there are other Catalan groups and movements that seek the independence of the Catalan Countries as a whole, such as: Sobirania i Progrés,[68] Deu Mil per l'autodeterminació,[69] Catalunya Estat Lliure,[70] Sobirania Valenciana,[71] etc. All these political parties and movements believe in non-violence and express their ideas in a non-violent manner.

Recently, there have been a series of non-binding, unofficial referenda or "popular votes" (consultes populars, in Catalan, a binding referendum for independence is illegal in Spain) held in municipalities around Catalonia, in which voters indicated whether they support Catalan independence from Spain.[72][73] They began on 13 September 2009 in the town of Arenys de Munt in a self-organised local movement and was then followed by a slew of Catalan municipalities. As an example of the positive results obtained everywhere, 90% of ballots cast in Barcelona on 11 April 2011 voted yes to independence. The number of voters was 230,590, representing 21.37% of the voting population.[74][75] These referenda are still ongoing, as there is slated to be a second round in 2011–2012.

Chechnya

Under Dzhokkar Dudayev, Chechnya declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of Chechens, and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the Achmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the USA), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.

Falkland Islands

Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[76] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.[77] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.[78] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[79]

Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable, asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[80] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[81] during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.[82] Historian Mary Cawkell[83] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain,[84][85] that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[86]

Israel and Palestinian territories

The right to self-determination as outlined in public international law is often referenced by both sides in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Jammu and Kashmir

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, called for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an alliance of 26 organizations in Kashmir seeks self-determination according to the UN resolution. Some groups have suggested that a third option of Independence be added to the resolutions two options of union with India or union with Pakistan.[87][88]

Kosovo

Kosovo is a largely ethnic-Albanian nation (Albanians 88%, Serbs 6%, Bosniaks 3%, Roma 2%, Turks 1%),[89] which seeks independence on territories long held by ethnic Serbs, including as part of Yugoslavia. Conflict between the two culminated in the 1996-1999 Kosovo War between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia led by Slobodan Milošević. This culminated in the 1999 United States/NATO attacks on Serbia, withdrawal of Serbian troops and entry of the NATO Kosovo Force. International negotiations to determine the final status of Kosovo were unsuccessful. On 17 February 2008, 109 members (10 members including all Kosovo Serbs were absent) of the Kosovo Assembly voted unanimously for a unilateral declaration of independence.[citation needed] Serbia rejected the decision. Kosovo independence is disputed and supervised by the international community following the conclusion of the political process to determine Kosovo's final status envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 1244.[89] See the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. In February 2008 Europe's major powers and the United States recognised independence of Kosovo.[90] The independence of Kosovo has been recognized by 114 countries as of 4 September 2020.[91][92] The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Government of Kosovo. On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice gave the following advisory opinion: "The declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law." [93]

Kurdistan

Kurdistan is a historical region primarily inhabited by the Kurdish people of the middle east. The territory is currently part of 4 states Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self-determination movements in each of the 4 states. Iraqi Kurdistan has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government, an entity recognised by the Iraqi Federal Constitution.

Although the right of the creation of a Kurdish state was recognized following World War I in the Treaty of Sèvres, the treaty was then annulled by the Treaty of Lausanne. To date two separate Kurdish republics and one Kurdish Kingdom have declared sovereignty. The Republic of Ararat (Northern Kurdistan/Eastern Turkey), the Republic of Mehabad (Eastern Kurdistan/Iranian Kurdistan) and the Kingdom of Kurdistan (Southern Kurdistan/Northern Iraq), each of these fledgling states was crushed by military intervention. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which currently holds the Iraqi presidency and the Kurdistan Democratic Party which governs the Kurdistan Regional Government both explicitly commit themselves to the development of Kurdish self-determination, but opinions vary as to the question of self-determination sought within the current borders and countries.

Nagorno Kharabagh

The Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan is part of the geographical area called Garabagh (Qarabağ). The name of this part of the country consists of two Azerbaijani words: “qara” (black) and “bağ” (garden). However, the majority Armenian population of the region refers to it by its previous Armenian name, Artsakh. As far as the right of peoples to self-determination is concerned, it is well known[citation needed] that, in reality, the practical realization of this right, as stipulated in the relevant international documents, does not involve unilateral secession, but represents a legitimate process carried out in accordance with international and domestic law within precisely identified limits.[citation needed]

There are two critical factors to be addressed in the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. Firstly, it is the extent of self-determination a people are given to protect themselves and determine how they wish to be ruled and what role is played by human rights violations, cultural eradication and pogroms by the Azerbaijani majority against the Armenian communities of Azerbaijan in a decision. Secondly, one must regard the question of legality of unconstitutional acts, such as violating the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Other considerations of the rules of international law, particularly those prohibiting the use of force and the acquisition of territory, are also relevant in that the Soviet authorities and, subsequently, the Azerbaijani government applied use of military and paramilitary force in ethnic cleansing initiatives like Operation Ring, while the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh established militia forces to resist further pogroms and defend the civilian population by repelling Azeri forces.

New Zealand

Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was among the first people to make this call,[94] which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington that year.

The South Island Party with a pro-South agenda, fielded candidates in the 1999 General Election.

Scotland

Moves towards Scottish Independence from the United Kingdom are being led by the majority Scottish National Party government in the Scottish Parliament, with a plebiscite scheduled for the Autumn of 2014.

South Africa

Southern Cameroons/Ambazonia

Southern Cameroons today makes up the two English-speaking regions of the Republic of Cameroun, the North West and South West regions. The people of Southern Cameroons' claim to self-determination arises out of their allegations that the Republic of Cameroun forcefully annexed their territory by the 1961 take over of the territory and the 1972 dissolution of the federation in favor of a Unitary Republic of Cameroon. Southern Cameroons scored a victory in a legal battle against the Republic of Cameroon when the African Commission for Human and Peoples' Rights found that there were unresolved issues with the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cameroon vis-a-vis Southern Cameroons. More importantly, the African Commission found that contrary to the claims of the Republic of Cameroon, the people of Southern Cameroons are indeed a "people" under the African Charter and broad international law with the inalienable right to determine their destiny.[95]

Southern Sudan

Southern Sudan reached a peace agreement with Sudan in 2005. It contained a referendum for self-determination in January 2011, during which an overwhelming majority voting for secession from northern Sudan.

Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan Tamils people seek self-determination due to ethnic pogroms and discrimination by the majority Sinhala government's discrimination in language, education, jobs, and civil liberties.[96] The early non violent protests developed into a violent confrontation with the state and eventual civil war. Tamil independence advocates argue that former sovereignty of Tamils in their north eastern homeland that was lost during colonialism should be re-instated to meet Tamil aspirations.

Taiwan

Taiwan is the focus of a self-determination dispute in the East Asia region. The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entirety of Taiwan as its territory. However, Taiwanese independence advocates argue that there is no legal claim to Taiwan, as no legally binding treaty ever transferred sovereignty to China following World War II, an assertion with which not only the People's Republic of China but the Republic of China currently governing Taiwan disagree. This de facto government of Taiwan also has not formally withdrawn its claims to China and several other areas. The People's Republic of China proposes that the island become its own special administrative region of China.

Tibet

From its unification from 604-650 CE until 1724 and from 1912 to 1951, Tibet was a sovereign nation.[disputeddiscuss] In 1949, when the Dalai Lama was 15 years old and thus not yet the head of state, the Chinese government ordered a military march into Tibet in order to force the Tibetan government to negotiate its sovereignty. When negotiations failed, China invaded. Tibet was then forced to "peacefully negotiate" its sovereignty, and ceded rule over Tibet to China in the Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951. The Dalai Lama has repudiated the agreement, claiming that it was signed under compulsion and that Chinese government forged Tibetan government seals. The delegates who allegedly represented Tibet were either chosen by the Chinese or were prisoners of Chinese, and were not allowed to communicate with the official Tibetan government during negotiations. Since the agreement, there have been widespread reports of political and religious oppression of Tibetans by the Chinese. The Tibetan government in exile, located in India, has continuously called for Tibet's sovereignty to be restored, or alternatively, in recent years, for greater political autonomy for the Tibetan region within the Chinese political system.

Turkish Cypriots

Since Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus in 1974, following ethnic clashes and turmoil on the island, an administration recognized by Turkey only was declared in 1983 – the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.[97] Turkish Cypriots and their former leader, Fazıl Küçük said that Turkish Cypriots had the right of self-determination, as well as Greek Cypriots.[98]

United States

The colonization of the North American continent and its Native American population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Surviving Native Americans have been resettled onto separate tracts of land (reservations), which have been given a certain degree of autonomy within the United States federal government.

Some Chicano nationalist groups seek to "recreate" Aztlán, the legendary homeland of the Aztecs comprising the Southwestern United States which is home to the majority of Mexican Americans.[99]

There are multiple active Hawaiian independence movements each with their own distinct modality of realizing some level of political control over single or several islands. The groups range from those seeking territorial units similar to Indian reservations under the United States with the least amount of independent control to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement which would have the most amount of control, The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement aims at reviving the Hawaiian nation under the Hawaiian constitution, which has retained its sovereignty while under prolonged illegal occupation since 1893.

Since 1972, the U.N. Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the U.S. to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review the political status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.[100] This follows the 1967 passage of a plebiscite act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued commonwealth, statehood, and independence. In the first plebscite the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes but U.S. congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was upheld.[101]

Many current U.S. state, regional and city secession groups use the language of self-determination. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[102][103]

So-called "Confederate Southern Americans", defined as white Christian descendents of those resident in the Confederate States of America at the onset of the Civil War (preferably having Scots or Scots-Irish descent), are seeking a "natural right to self-determination" by claiming "oppressed minority" status through Neo-Confederate groups such as the League of the South.

A 2012 book by Marcus Ruiz Evans entitled California's Next Century details an overhauling of California's statehood via a plan to embrace its unique global role and form itself as an independent republic, uniquely poised to become the Switzerland of the 21st century, a global nerve center of international diplomacy, technology and finance.[104]

See also

References

  1. ^ See: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 in Wikisource
  2. ^ McWhinney, Edward (2007). Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-Building and the Alternative, Federal Option. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 8. ISBN 9004158359. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  3. ^ See: Chapter I - Purposes and Principles of Charter of the United Nations
  4. ^ See: Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter reads: Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them then became one of the eight cardinal principal points of the Charter all people had a right to self-determination.
  5. ^ "United Nations Trust Territories that have achieved self-determination". Un.org. 1960-12-14. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Betty Miller Unterberger, Self-Determination, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, 2002.
  7. ^ Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by the United Nations General Assembly
  8. ^ Annex of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)

    Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for in article 73 e of the charter of the United Nations

    Principle I
    The authors of the Charter of the United Nations had in mind that Chapter XI should be applicable to territories which were then known to be of the colonial type. An obligation exists to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter in respect of such territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

    Principle II
    Chapter XI of the Charter embodies the concept of Non-Self-Governing Territories in a dynamic state of evolution and progress towards a "full measure of self-government". As soon as a territory and its peoples attain a full measure of self-government, the obligation ceases. Until this comes about, the obligation to transmit information under Article 73 e continues.

    Principle III
    The obligation to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter constitutes an international obligation and should be carried out with due regard to the fulfilment of international law.

    Principle IV
    Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country admin­istering it.

    Principle V
    Once it has been established that such a prima facie case of geographical and ethnical or cultural distinctness of a territory exists, other elements may then be brought into consideration. These additional elements may be, inter alia, of an administrative, political, juridical, economic or historical nature. If they affect the relationship between the metropolitan Slate and the territory concerned in a manner which arbitrarily places the latter in a position or status of subordination, they support the presumption that there is an obligation to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter.

    Principle VI
    A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
     (a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
     (b) Free association with an independent State; or
     (c) Integration with an independent State.

    Principle VII
     (a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural charac­teristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.
     (b) The associated territory should have the right to deter­mine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people. This does not preclude con­sultations as appropriate or necessary under the terms of the free association agreed upon.

    Principle VIII
    Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.

    Principle IX
    Integration should have come about in the following circum­stances :
     (a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;
     (b) The integration should be the result of the freely ex­pressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowl­edge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, im­partially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes.

    Principle X
    The transmission of information in respect of Non-Self-Governing Territories under Article 73 e of the Charter is subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require. This means that the extent of the information may be limited in certain circumstances, but the limitation in Article 73 e cannot relieve a Member State of the obligations of Chapter XI. The "limitation" can relate only to the quantum of information of economic, social and educa­tional nature to be transmitted.

    Principle XI
    The only constitutional considerations to which Article 73 e of the Charter refers are those arising from constitutional relations of the territory with the Administering Member. They refer to a situation in which the constitution of the territory gives it self-government in economic, social and educational matters through freely elected institutions. Nevertheless, the responsibility for transmitting information under Article 73 e continues, unless these constitutional relations preclude the Government or parliament of the Administering Member from receiving statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the territory.

    Principle XII
    Security considerations have not been invoked in the past. Only in very exceptional circumstances can information on economic, social and educational conditions have any security aspect. In other circumstances, therefore, there should be no necessity to limit the transmission of Information on security grounds.

  9. ^ See: General Assembly 15th Session - resolution 1541 (XV) (pages:509-510)
  10. ^ See:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514
  11. ^ See:United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages:509-510)
  12. ^ "Merriam-Webster online dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  13. ^ Answers.com definition.
  14. ^ Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Since 1500 , p. 767, Cengage Learning, 2008, ISBN 0-495-50287-1, ISBN 978-0-495-50287-6.
  15. ^ Chimène Keitner, Oxford University, Self-Determination: The Legacy of the French Revolution, paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Meeting, March 2000.
  16. ^ Self-Determination Not a New Expedient; First Plebiscite Was Held in Avignon During the French Revolution—Forthcoming Book Traces History and Growth of the Movement, New York Times July 20, 1919, 69.
  17. ^ Erica Benner, ‘’Really existing nationalisms: a post-communist view from Marx and Engels’‘, p. 188, Oxford University Press, 1995 ISBN 0-19-827959-0, ISBN 978-0-19-827959-4
  18. ^ a b "What Is Meant By The Self-Determination of Nations?". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  19. ^ "http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world45.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  20. ^ a b Murray N. Rothbard, National Self-Determination, Rothbard Archives at Lewrockwell.com, August 1990.
  21. ^ "United Nations Charter". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  22. ^ "Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". .ohchr.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  23. ^ "Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights". .ohchr.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  24. ^ a b Paul R. Hensel and Michael E. Allison, Department of Political Science Florida State University and Ahmed Khanani, Department of Political Science, Indiana University, The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability: Uti Possidetis and Territorial Claims in the Americas, research paper at Paul Hensel's Florida State university web site.
  25. ^ a b c d e Vita Gudeleviciute, Does the Principle of Self-determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?, International Journal of Baltic Law, Vytautas Magnus University School of Law, Volume 2, No. 2 (April 2005).
  26. ^ Resolution 1514 (XV) "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"
  27. ^ Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
  28. ^ Elizabeth Chadwick, Self-determination, terrorism, and the international humanitarian law of armed conflict, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 192-193 ISBN 90-411-0122-5
  29. ^ Cilliers, Jakkie (1984). Counter-Insurgency in Rhodesia. London, Sydney & Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm. pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-0-7099-3412-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), "Chimurenga war communiqué No. 8. Period from 30 Jan to 20 March 1974". Lusaka: Zimbabwe African National Union. 27 March 1974.
  30. ^ George M. Houser. "Letter by George M. Houser, Executive Director of the American Committee on Africa (ACOA), on the 1980 independence election in Rhodesia". Retrieved 2007-12-01.
  31. ^ [1] p.220
  32. ^ "United Nations Treaty Series Nr.10760: Agreement relating to Malaysia" (PDF). United Nations Treaty Collection. United Nations. 1963. Retrieved 2010-07-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  33. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514
  34. ^ "United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages:509-510)" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  35. ^ "United Nations General Assembly 18th Session - the Question of Malaysia (pages:41-44)" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  36. ^ "United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, Manila Accord between Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 JULY 1963)" (PDF). Un.org. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
  37. ^ "United Nations Treaty Series No. 8809, Agreement relating to the implementation of the Manila Accord" (PDF). Un.org. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
  38. ^ "United Nations list of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, '''North Borneo and Sarawak'''". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  39. ^ "United Nations Member States". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  40. ^ Martin Griffiths, Self-determination, International Society And World Order, Macquarie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  41. ^ "United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (08 09 2000), paragraph 4" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  42. ^ a b c d e f g Aleksandar Pavkovic and Peter Radan, In Pursuit of Sovereignty and Self-determination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order, Index of papers, Macquerie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  43. ^ "Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their implications for international peace, security and development. The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, Security Council, Sixty-third year/ General Assembly, Sixty-third session, Agenda items 13 and 18, A/63/664–S/2008/823, 29 December 2008" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  44. ^ "Prof. Johan D. van der Vyver (Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Emory University School of Law), Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec Under International Law, Journal of TRANSNATIONAL LAW & POLICY, Vol. 10:1, FALL 2000, USA" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  45. ^ CRIA. "M.Mammadov, Legal Aspects of the Nagorno-Garabagh Conflict, Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Vol. 1 (1) - Winter 2006, Germany, pp. 14-30". Cria-online.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  46. ^ "S. Neil MacFarlane (Professor of International Relations and Fellow, St Anne's College, University of Oxford), Normative Conflict – Territorial Integrity and National Self-Determination, Centre for Social Sciences, December 14, 2010". Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  47. ^ Thomas D. Musgrave (2000). Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-19-829898-4. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  48. ^ [2] Falkland Islands Government, Dick Sawle MLA, The Challenge of Sovereignty in small states As I mentioned previously, the UN itself, in 2008, rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming self-determination to be “a basic human right.”
  49. ^ "General Assembly GA/SPD/406". UN Department of Public Information. 20 October 2008. Retrieved March 10, 2012.
  50. ^ Aleksandar Pavković, Majority Rule and Equal Rights: a Few Questions, Macquarie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  51. ^ Harry Beran, "A Democratic Theory of Political Self-Determination for a New World Order" in Percy Lehning (ed), Theories of Secession (1998) 36, 39, 42–43.
  52. ^ a b c d Andrei Kreptul, The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100.
  53. ^ Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession, p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
  54. ^ Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection.
  55. ^ Xenophon Contiades, Sixth Scholarly Panel: Cultural Identity in the New Europe, 1st Global Conference on Federalism and the Union of European Democracies, March 2004.
  56. ^ Sebastian Anstis, The Normative Bases of the Global Territorial Order, Diplomacy & Statecraft, Volume 21, no. 2 (June 2010), pp. 306–323.
  57. ^ "EITB: ''Basque parliament adopts resolution on self-determination''". Eitb24.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  58. ^ [3][dead link]
  59. ^ http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv4.htm"What is the MNLV (4)"
  60. ^ "What is the MNLV (3)" (in Template:Es icon). Goizargi.com. 2002-01-27. Retrieved 2012-03-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  61. ^ "Nigeria profile". BBC Africa. May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
  62. ^ Guy Leblanc. Canada: Parti Québécois convention meets as support for separation wanes
  63. ^ Dominique Clift (1982). Quebec nationalism in crisis. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-7735-0383-0.
  64. ^ "The Catalan Countries". Grup Enciclopèdia Catalana. Accessed: 13 February 2008
  65. ^ "The Rise of the Aragonese-Catalan Empire, 1200-1350 Vol. 1 by J. Lee Shneidman". Questia.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  66. ^ http://www.enciclopedia.cat/fitxa_v2.jsp?NDCHEC=0225093 c.
  67. ^ "Original Aragonese Empire extension map on "A History of Aragon and Catalonia" by H. J. Chaytor". Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  68. ^ http://www.sobiraniaiprogres.cat/ c.
  69. ^ http://deumil.cat/ c.
  70. ^ http://www.catalunyaestatlliure.cat/ c.
  71. ^ "cllombart". Sobiraniavalenciana.org. 2008-10-16. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  72. ^ BBC News: Catalonia votes on independence from Spain
  73. ^ Daily News: Catalans to vote in non-binding independence referendum
  74. ^ ""230,590 people vote Yes to independence", Barcelona Decideix, 11 April 2011". Barcelonadecideix.cat. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  75. ^ "21,37%: Barcelona fa història", Barcelona Decideix, 19 April 2011, in Catalan.
  76. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  77. ^ Victor Bulmer-Thomas (17 August 1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-521-37205-3. Retrieved 11 September 2012.
  78. ^ "Falklands' 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  79. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  80. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  81. ^ [4] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  82. ^ Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.
  83. ^ Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  84. ^ [5] The Telegraph, Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina, Jasper Copping, 27 Feb 2010 There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.
  85. ^ Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the Sout Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. pp. 91–94. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  86. ^ Marjory Harper (1998). Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?. Manchester University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7190-4927-9.
  87. ^ "Right To Self-determination, A Key To Kashmir Solution". Countercurrents.org. 24 February 2007. Retrieved 12 August 2009. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  88. ^ Kashmiri-cc.ca on UN Resolution 47 and United Nation resolutions on Kashmir.
  89. ^ a b Background Brief : Kosovo, Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
  90. ^ Timeline : Kosovo, BBC News.
  91. ^ "Who Recognized Kosova? The Kosovar people thank you". Kosovothanksyou.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  92. ^ Republic of Kosova Government
  93. ^ "Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  94. ^ History of New Stornoway
  95. ^ "Google docs". Docs.google.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  96. ^ Vijay Sappani. (February 06, 2009). The crisis in Sri Lanka: Canada's role. National Post.
  97. ^ "BBC Timeline: Cyprus, accessed 2-26-2008". BBC News. 2011-12-13. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  98. ^ Küçük, Fazıl. Mücadelemizin Görkemli Günleri, p.10
  99. ^ Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland', Associated Press, 2000
  100. ^ "Special Committee on Decolonization Calls on United States to Expedite Puerto Rico's Self-determination Process – General Assembly GA/COL/3160 – Department of Public Information – June 14, 2007". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  101. ^ For complete statistics of these plebiscites, see Elections in Puerto Rico:Results.
  102. ^ Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll: One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to Secede, Zogby International, July 23, 2008.
  103. ^ Alex Mayer, Secession: still a popular idea?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 25, 2008.
  104. ^ California: The Global Nation?Californiality.com

Books

  • Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., ed. The Self-Determination of Peoples: Community, Nation, and State in an Interdependent World, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
  • Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., and Arthur Watts, eds. Self-Determination and Self-Administration: A Sourcebook, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997.
  • Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford Political Theory), Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
  • Annalisa Zinn, Globalization and Self-Determination (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
  • Marc Weller, Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
  • Valpy Fitzgerald, Frances Stewart, Rajesh Venugopal (Editors), Globalization, Violent Conflict and Self-Determination, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
  • Joanne Barker (Editor), Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination, University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
  • David Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (Developments in International Law, V. 43) (Developments in International Law, V. 43), Springer, 2002.
  • Y.N. Kly and D. Kly, In pursuit of The Right to Self-determination, Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations, Geneva 2000, G E N E V A 2000, preface by Richard Falk, Clarity Press, 2001.
  • Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures), Cambridge University Press, 1999.
  • Percy Lehning, Theories of Secession, Routledge, 1998.
  • Hurst Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.